DragonFly kernel List (threaded) for 2003-12
Re: configuration files
Richard Coleman <Richard.Coleman@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> My guess is something of this nature will never happen within the
> confines of current BSD projects. You would never get enough people to
> agree on the details, and the resulting bikeshed discussion would be
> legendary. This is not a slam on any current project. Such a change
> would be very disruptive with very little short term gain (most of the
> gains would be long term).
> Some of the special purpose forks (such as monowall) have done such
> things in order to facilitate using web interfaces, etc. It's easier
> here, since these are "closed" systems.
> The best way to achieve such a re-architecting of /etc is with a new
> project/fork that has this as a primary goal. I'm sure this will happen
Anybody doing self-configuring / self-healing / agent based maintenance or
similar stuff would want /etc to be easily machine-maintainable. Some aspects
of "single system image" for clusters also wants the same.
Its not as if the rc changes hapepend easily or overnight - somebody doing it
slowly, keeping patches, showing off additional cool stuff that becomes enabled
will IMHO get there one day, as he will have worked around the vocal oponents.
I'm not sure if /etc is worth or sufficent for a fork.
> Richard Coleman
+++ Out of cheese error +++